6 ms·
Not true, it's too late for nuclear power. Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger. An
by gefhfff 5y ago
Not true, it's too late for nuclear power.
Additionally it is quite expensive compared to renewables and makes the burden on future generations even bigger.
Anyway, don't shut down any working plant early...
We need everything we have atm
- willis936 5y agoToo late in what sense? The problems time out and solve themselves?
- throwaway821909 5y agoRenewables got cheaper to the point where it's not competitive Counter-argument: Wind and sun are unreliable Counter-counter-argument: Why not build 10x the amount of wind and solar if it's so cheap, and automatically break the circuit when not needed?
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoYou can build even 100x the amount of solar, but the sun will set anyway.
- Krasnol 5y agoI don't understand how this argument got so popular even though the ignorance is so obvious. Nobody builds ONLY solar or ONLY wind or ONLY hydro. Why should you? Please stop repeating this...it's ridiculous.
- rhacker 5y agoSo if you plan on building 4KW solar, and then decide to do 100X that, you can generate ~1800KWH per day (400 * 5 hours per day of ideal sun * fudge factor). If you have the battery storage for that you can probably get through 66 days from one sunny day. The cost would be super prohibitive too, but not everyone needs 100X out there solar to get through some rough days. My personal plan is 30KW (over the next few years) so I can get through like 4 days. And heck, a stormy day will still generate enough electricity.
- fastball 5y agoYour counter-counter-argument requires a lot of energy storage, which is certainly not a solved problem.
- natmaka 5y agoEven better: when produced energy is not needed... store it, in order to use it when production is insufficient.
- rsj_hn 5y agoIt is those battery costs that make solar lose the price advantage, so yeah, it's a problem.
- naasking 5y agoSolar is now so much cheaper than everything else that I find your claim hard to believe.
- rsj_hn 5y agoSolar could be free, and still the battery costs would be prohibitive. In terms of "hard to believe", ask yourself why countries have not managed to roll out storage capacity to match the solar capacity? It's because solar is relying on fossil fuels or nuclear or hydro to be there when it's dark.
- natmaka 5y agoIndeed, because building wind/solar/biomass/... production units took most of the investment capacity, while coping for variability was cheap because we already had thermal (fossil fueled) powerplants. Those are aging up and more and more expensive to use due to carbon taxes, therefore storage-related projects get boosted. H2 (and fuel cells), thermal and kinetic storage... are getting traction. The sheer amount of electricity produced by intermittent renewables (solar & wind) while nobody wants it grows. Many markets have more and more negative prices timeframes, where the producer is ready to pay in order to get rid of it (gridpower network stability implies "production == consumption", any over/under-load is dangerous for it). However electricity prices are way, way up during under-production periods. This creates an already huge and growing incentive for storage. Also add electric vehicles batteries (and, maybe one day, home batteries) which will more and more be usable to store overproduction thanks to smartgrid and various tricks ( such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid). The landscape is quickly (relatively to its huge inertia) changing.
- derekjdanserl 5y agoWhy is it too late?
- engineer_22 5y agoThe dirty little secret is that renewables are consumable. They wear out and have to be replaced. Like discount shoes: they're cheap, they don't look good, and you throw them away after a while.
- m0llusk 5y agoThe dirtier non secret is that all the critical parts of a nuclear reactor become radioactive waste. We still have no long term plan for dealing with the radioactive waste that had already been generated.
- trinovantes 5y agoThe heavy metals used in batteries and solar panels are also very toxic [1]. Only reason we don't talk about them is because they can be offshored since they can't be weaponized. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-...
- natmaka 5y agoBatteries: huge recycling projects ( such as https://northvolt.com/ https://northvolt.com/ ) are moving forward and the market is ready: in many industrial nations battery-equipped vehicles and buildings are already recycled, not thrown in a trashcan.
- rhacker 5y agoThe cool thing about solar panels is that they are recyclable like old clothes. People are super super happy buying 5 year old panels for $80 that are rated at 250 watts but are giving someone like 235 now.
- andygates 5y agoInteresting word choice "consumable" versus "parts require maintenance". One suggests a lie, the other is just SOP in any plant with moving parts. Are you sure you're an engineer?
- sebow 5y agoMore expensive?Yeah, probably, because the alarmist message about nuclear has been the rhetoric for decades.I would argue nuclear is greener, yes, than some renewable sources like wind/solar (of whom the effects to our atmosphere and fauna are still vastly ignored or not documented enough). Many people focus on carbon or some other element that in vast amounts is damaging to our climate, but forget the fact that animals,birds,and life in general can sustain and even undo the effects of pollution in some cases. A 0-carbon atmosphere is rendered useless if there are no birds, plants(which by the way USE it) or life (besides humans, presumably). People should look at the individuals/entities that push for climate _alarmist_ (not awareness, a distinction to be understood) messages and think beyond the political and economic gain that those entities benefit if such messages are to be followed.
- rsj_hn 5y agoI think talking about "no birds" is extreme, but I do agree that covering the planet with trillions of solar panels is not environmentally friendly. The size of the footprint has to be taken into account.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoYou're very welcome to argue that renewables are less green than nukes, but you're going to have a hard time backing up your argument with independent research, because the facts argue against you. As for animals etc undoing the effects of pollution "in some cases" - some practical examples would be helpful, because I suspect most people have never heard of any examples that aren't trivial or anecdotal. The whole point of zero carbon is literally to keep the planet as hospitable to life as possible. Your vague argument about... something is the exact opposite of the point here.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoIt is more expensive mostly because the government creates economic incentives for renewables, and disencentivises nuclear. Politicians act this way because public was taught by the militant ecoactivists that nuclear energy is baaaaaaad (better use coal, right), and now vote against politicians that support it.
- pirate787 5y agoThe Fukushima disaster was a stark lesson that had nothing to do with "militant ecoactivists".
- fastball 5y agoHow so? The Fukushima (nuclear) disaster killed a single person (and then that was a legal finding, not a scientific one).
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoYes, yes, the standard CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA RADIATION RADIATION DEATH DEATH TO ALL HUMANITY FROM RADIATION!!! argument. In reality, the fossil fuel disaster is much more severe with far bigger environmental impact.
- gefhfff 5y agoLook at global prices: https://amp.dw.com/en/nuclear-climate-mycle-schneider-renewables-fukushima/a-56712368 https://amp.dw.com/en/nuclear-climate-mycle-schneider-renewa...
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoThat +33% rise in nuclear energy prices is precisely what I'm talking about. It is a product of relentless attacks on nuclear power. Had it seen the same promotion and investment as solar/wind over the last 20 years, it would be -90% too.
- m0zg 5y agoSee, you can't "believe in climate change" and be against the cleanest, most abundant energy source we have: nuclear. It's just not a logically consistent position, a litmus test to determine if one's environmental advocacy is real or merely performative. That is why China has announced they're building 150 new nuclear reactors in the next 15 years. The US will _inevitably_ have to follow suit to remain competitive.
- natmaka 5y agoChina: * 50GW nuclear already in place, producing 5% of the gridpower. Previsions: up to 200GW in 2030. * 790GW renewables already in place, producing 26% of the gridpower. Previsions: 1200GW in 2030. In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of windpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
- erentz 5y agoInteresting, that's a pretty good illustration of the low capacity factors of wind and solar given that renewables figure includes 356GW of hydro power. And it shows them increasing nuclear power 4x but renewables only 50% by 2030.
- natmaka 5y ago4x of not-so-much is easy and doesn't change the big picture while 50% of a huge amount is... huge and maintains the big picture.
- rsj_hn 5y ago> In 2020 alone China added 71.6GW of windpower. The problem here is that China's share of total energy from renewables has decreased from about 33% in 1990 to 13% in 2018[1]. Solar and Wind are not particularly useful given they are unreliable. Hydro is useful as it is reliable, but after the three gorges dam project, there isn't a lot left on the table in terms of hydro for China. Note that this is not because China is reducing renewables but rather it's energy needs are increasing so rapidly. And 58% of China's energy usage - 74 Terrawatt hours - is from coal, and that number is increasing -- 220 million more tons of coal being added just this year[2] [1] https://www.worlddata.info/asia/china/energy-consumption.php https://www.worlddata.info/asia/china/energy-consumption.php [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/china-coal/chinas-coal-consumption-seen-rising-in-2021-imports-steady-idUSL3N2L12A9 https://www.reuters.com/article/china-coal/chinas-coal-consu...
- TrispusAttucks 5y agoAgreed. Title should read "Was" not "Is". We're out of time. We should have been building out nuclear for decades.
- fastball 5y agoPrice is only one part of the equation. We should be using the best energy for the job, which in many cases/places is nuclear. Nuclear is a clean and reliable source of energy that doesn't need grid-level energy storage in order to be a comprehensive solution. Solar and wind need storage. Not everywhere is windy and not everywhere is sunny. If you look at the total cost including storage and decomissioning, solar and wind are not nearly as cheap as you think they are.
- Robotbeat 5y agoNuclear costs, particularly in high latitude countries like most of Europe, are pretty reasonable and competitive in a future where you’re 100% decarbonized. Renewables are cheaper if we are just 80% decarbonized. Check it: https://model.energy https://model.energy The cost is also HIGHLY dependent on time to complete. And a big part of that time, besides contractor inexperience because we don’t build them much any more, is the constant battles with activists and environmental groups and NIMBYs